Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 20 Nov 2009.
The internet has numbed my mind to these kind of things!
I didnt kill anyone, just couldn't face doing it.
i know it was a game, but there was a little to close for me.
Fair point, tbh I'm surprised MW2 didn't get an 18 cert for said level with all the controversy. I don't particularly care, I'll shoot anything half-life Scientists are still my favorite! "Please, What are you doing!" Brrrrap Brrap!
I didnt shot until the Swat guys. But the game did manage to make me think about what was happening there.
Imagine that you're that CIA guy. And that due to your undercover job you had to do that. In real life you wouldn't just need to be there. You would have to shoot that innocent people. You would have to involve your self in evil acts for the greater good. This mentality is also not that different from the terrorists themselves. They also consider they're doing evil acts for the greater good. It is really a divisive issue.
Likewise, I assumed that as I was a CIA agent, there would be frowned upon. I only started shooting when there was no choice it the matter - i.e. people shooting at me and my team mates not progressing any further of their own accord.
I had everyone in my house looking at me when i went thru the airport level, i think they found my manical laughter somewhat disturbing
The first time I played the level I was very hesitant to shooting any civilians, but the second time was quite a different story...boy oh boy, I let hell loose!
Yeah I shot. I shot all those mother *******! The guy trying to crawl away? Popped a cap in his ass 'yo! Those security guards? Bullet through the brain!
Ahem...anyhoo. Didn't see what all the fuss was about to be honest - it's just a game. The mission in question (imo) was added purely for publicity/hype. It's possibly the most talked about game in the media at the moment.
I didn't see them as helpless civilians though, all I saw were jaggy polygons covered in flat textures. Games don't yet look realistic enough to cause concern imo. I mean, the bad guys' feet actually passed through the bodies when they walked 'over' them. Like someone has already stated, it's no worse than killing innocent bystanders in GTAIV.
The bit where
Roach & Ghost died
stuck in my mind more. I mean come on,
Roach was burnt alive
- that's pretty horrific.
If you take some moral high ground in a video game, you are retarded.
Unless of course it opens up a new type of gameplay/story. For example infamous.
But thinking about it from a realistic perspective rather than seizing the moral high ground: if you didn't open fire, the terrorists would know you were an undercover agent. The game isn't that realistic, so if you don't shoot anyone the other bad guys don't even bat an eyelid (yes, I tried it to see what would happen), but personally I would have preferred it if the level included something to that effect (like they turn around and shoot you or whatever). Of course it doesn't matter in the end anyway
(since Makarov shoot you at the end of the level)
, but it would add to the immersion and the feeling that this is something you must do.
If you guys want to be all self-righteous when you're playing a video game then you probably should have skipped that level altogether.
What makes GTA rampages ok?
Stating that GTA was accepted, in spite of the evidence to the contrary is not a foundation for an argument.
That being said, i take my proverbial hat off to Infinity Ward for having the balls to go through with this. It's non trivial to have the courage to develop this idea, then to persuade the folks with the money to risk it all on a non politically correct scenario like this.
The over arching pressure from the money holders (who live in a cover-your-ar$e world) is to make everything as sterile as possible, and thus presumable a safer bet that the product will be consumed equally by as many groups as possible.
I hate the idea of making the world sterile.
Echoing you and Baz, that was very unexpected. As the next level was loading, I was still thinking, "s*iiit?!" It didn't make it any easier to digest with that last bit to get to the choppa being chuffing difficult! Took me a few goes!
the amount of times you were 'killed'
, I thought the last scene would just fade to black.
It's a G-A-M-E, FFS!
My approach to FPS games is: If it moves, kill it! So no problems for me
That's not the case at all. Just look about how much everyone is talking about their game - bad publicity is still publicity and it makes people more aware of their products. Has this level actually stopped anyone buying this game? I very much doubt it, and if there is then they are in the very small minority. Gamers have seen all this before in games like GTA, so it makes no difference to them whatsoever. By and large the only people who find this morally reprehensible are those that don't play video games, and therefore don't understand them.
That just makes you sound like a Daily Mail columnist. Considering the relatively low saturation of video games (worldwide sales of MW2 are currently ~10% of the population of the UK), then how does this even come close to making the world "sterile" (assuming it makes 100% of people that play the game "sterile"). And even if it did, how would that benefit the makers of the game? That just leaves them with fewer avenues they can explore to appeal to their customers.
It was released worldwide on the 10th of November, the day before Remembrance Day (Veterans Day in the US).
I haven't played the game yet, not really that bothered about playing it.
But I cannot see how killing "innocent civilians" is any worse than killing an opposing force, we happily run around shooting "Nazis" in WW2 games. If you stop and think about it, do you think all of these people are evil tyrants? No far from it, most would have been normal people who got drafted in whether they believed it or not, at a later date they may have become a "Nazi" through exposure and propaganda, but that's human nature.
Terrorists on the other hand, have more often than not made a concious decision to join a group which promotes, encourages and performs acts of violences against civilians, they are therefore, fair game.
Its all a moot point anyway, its a game not real life. If someone decides to gun down a group of people in an airport the game will be blamed, but the individual(s) would more than likely have done something along those lines anyway. No one bats a eyelid when someone goes around running over the citizens of Liberty City, even when there is no reason or storyline behind it, why would something that is written into the game to emulate a real life situation get more attention than that.
Edit: Of course all the testers opened fire, it is their jobs to test the game.
Man I was having fun on the airport level, throwing nades and using the 203 nade launcher into the crows. Fecking brilliant fun!!!
Separate names with a comma.